Jason Sanford, the award‐winning writer and editor of the Genre Grapevine newsletter, has become a lightning rod in the science fiction and fantasy community. Blake is adamantly in favor of the Science Fiction and Fantasy Writers Association’s (SFWA) recent move to bar works generated with LLMs from consideration for the Nebula Awards. This announcement follows the highly criticized March rule change. It reflects the organization’s willingness to listen to its members’ concerns about the impact of artificial intelligence on creative writing.
This past week, Sanford took to his blog to praise the Nebula Awards. He informed us about how LLM technology is revolutionizing the writing world. He highlighted the importance of maintaining the integrity of storytelling, stating, “not only because of this theft but because the tools are not actually creative and defeat the entire point of storytelling.” His stance is clear: he refuses to incorporate generative AI into his fiction writing, underscoring a broader sentiment among many writers in the genre.
The SFWA initially revised its rules in December, which appeared to open the door for works partly created by LLMs. This led to a firestorm from the writing community. In response, these guidelines were soon changed to explicitly bar any work containing AI-generated content from consideration. The SFWA Board of Directors admitted their error. They wrote, “We realize our approach and phrasing were incorrect, and we are sorry for the anxiety and mistrust that we created.”
Glen Wooten, who’s involved with the art show at San Diego Comic-Con, addressed fears about prominently displaying AI art. He recently raised his voice in advance of the convention planned for October 13-15, 2026. As Wooten reminded us, more robust prior rules kept undesirable works out in the first place. He reiterated that work made in whole or in part by Artificial Intelligence (AI) is not allowed in the art exhibition. Artists and writers are pushing back against AI’s increasing encroachment into creative fields. They remain fiercely committed to defending their art form and protecting its spirit.
Except, as the reprieve for Comic-Con’s art show reveals, there wouldn’t be any controversy without ‘em. Under these rules, AI-generated art could be shown, but it could not be sold. In our discussion, Wooten noted how dire things have gotten. This recent spike in urgency makes the need for more robust guidelines on ways to implement AI into art imperative. He asserted, “The issue is becoming more of a problem, so more strident language is necessary: NO! Plain and simple.”
Sanford’s reflections on LLMs touch on more philosophical issues, including LLMs’ effect on the creative process. He noted that Americans use online search engines and other computer products powered by LLM technology every day. It’s important to draw a line between using these tools as helpful collaborators and using them to do the work of creativity. He warned us to tread lightly. Writers who utilize word processing, research, and other tools that deploy LLM technology should not be disproportionately disqualified from awards such as the Nebulas or judgment from their readers and fellow writers.
The conflict between AI’s use in creative writing and art is quickly changing. Professional organizations like SFWA and major events like Comic-Con are reacting quickly to the issues raised by their members. These institutions have an incredible opportunity and responsibility in making decisions today that will impact generations to come. Their decisions will shape how we judge creative works in an era increasingly ruled by AI.